MICHAEL SUKENIK VS. MARINA DIZIK(DC-14769-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)DCPP VS. K.M. AND R.A.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.M.(FG-09-101-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4053-15T3

Background

Defendant Haniyyah Ali, a 25-year-old single mother with no prior record, was indicted for aggravated assault (charged as violent), unlawful weapon possession, and possession for an unlawful purpose after a playground altercation where the victim, K.H., suffered a stab wound and collapsed lung.
Defendant disputes stabbing the victim, claims defensive/reactive involvement on behalf of her sister and children, and points to possible misidentification (identical twin sister) and lack of corroborating eyewitnesses.
The county criminal division manager rejected defendant's PTI application citing the violent nature of the offense and victim opposition; the prosecutor concurred, applying the presumption against PTI for violent crimes and stressing deterrence and the victim’s objections.
Defense sought review in Law Division; an assistant prosecutor asserted at oral argument that PTI is for "victimless" crimes and a victim’s opposition is controlling, reflecting a possible office practice.
The trial court ordered defendant admitted to PTI, finding the rejection arbitrary and citing weaknesses in the State’s case; the Appellate Division reversed that order but remanded for prosecutorial reconsideration because the prosecutor may have applied an impermissible per se victim veto.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecutor's PTI denial was a patent and gross abuse of discretion	Rejection was proper under presumption against PTI for violent offenses; victim opposition and need for deterrence justified denial	Prosecutor relied improperly on victim opposition and applied a per se rule; denial ignored defendant-specific factors	Trial court erred in compelling PTI admission; reversal and remand for reconsideration because prosecutor may have applied an unauthorized per se victim-veto and failed to consider all relevant factors
Whether a prosecutor may treat victim opposition as dispositive	Victim opposition and injury are appropriate and weighty considerations supporting denial	Victim opposition cannot operate as an automatic veto; prosecutor must consider all statutory factors	Prosecutor may consider victim views but cannot apply a categorical rule granting victims a veto; remand required to assure proper factor consideration
Whether court may substitute its judgment for prosecutor on strength of State’s case	Strength of evidence supports denial and need for prosecution/deterrence	PTI is not designed to litigate factual guilt; weaknesses in State’s case support PTI	Court should defer to prosecutor on discretionary PTI denials; however assessing case strength is not a proper basis to compel PTI admission
Proper remedy when prosecutor considered inappropriate factors but no patent and gross abuse shown	State: remand is appropriate if reconsideration needed	Defense: order compelling PTI because error was patent and gross	Appellate court: remand for reevaluation is appropriate to preserve prosecutorial discretion while ensuring no per se rule used

Key Cases Cited

State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190 (2015) (standard for overturning PTI denials and remand when prosecutor misapplies factors)
State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236 (1995) (prosecutor must provide defendant-specific reasons for PTI denial and may not rely on weight of evidence)
State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434 (1997) (prosecutor may not apply blanket rules; must consider relevant factors)
State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611 (2015) (explains "extraordinary and unusual circumstances" to overcome presumption against PTI for violent crimes)
State v. Caliguiri, 158 N.J. 28 (1999) (rejecting per se rules and addressing PTI presumption for violent offenses)
State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576 (1996) (presumption courts give to prosecutorial PTI decisions and limits on judicial substitution)
State v. Maddocks, 80 N.J. 98 (1979) (issues about consideration of PTI factors present legal questions subject to independent review)
State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84 (1979) (defines "patent and gross" abuse of discretion standard applicable to PTI vetoes)
State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73 (2003) (scope of review of prosecutorial discretion in PTI decisions)